The Navajo Nation Supreme Court heard the case of Navajo Transport Services, Inc. v. Schroeder in Cook Auditorium Monday afternoon.
Members of the Navajo Nation decided to hold the proceedings at Dartmouth in order to educate students about their cultural practices. Previous hearings of the court have been held on the campuses of Harvard Law School and the University of Michigan School of Law. Vermont Law School co-hosted the Hanover event.
"There are Indian nations. They exist, they thrive, and like any sovereign society, they wish to preserve their laws, their traditions, their values," said Herb Yazzie, the court's chief justice. "And sometimes they conflict with the states or the federal government, and cases are brought up to try to find an answer. ... People need to be aware of the rightful place of Indian nations."
Monday's case involved a member of the Navajo Nation who bought a case of beer from the Eagle Claw Trading Post, a liquor store outside the reservation, consumed the alcohol and drove drunk on the reservation, causing an accident that killed two and injured four.
The decision before the court's judges Monday was whether or not the liquor store should be held responsible for the actions of the tribal member.
"The case here deals with the scope of tribal jurisdiction," one of the members of the court staff noted.
More specifically, the case is concerned with whether or not the Navajo Supreme Court should rely on its "long-arm" statutes in order to prosecute the liquor store for its involvement in the incident. According to Yazzie, this type of jurisdiction is one that works to bring the beliefs of the Navajo Nations to the larger surrounding community.
"'Long-arm' is a really good title for the concept that you may not be present here on our lands but our arm of the government is going to reach out there and make you subject to our laws," Yazzie said.
The prosecution claimed that the liquor store should have taken note of the fact that the defendant was a Navajo, whose reservation prohibits the sale of alcohol. Because the store consciously chose to sell the defendant the case of beer, the prosecution stated that it should be held responsible for the accident that occurred later that evening.
"This trading post should have known that because of its relationship with the Navajo it could be held accountable for the actions that lead to death of the Navajo people," prosecuting attorney James Ledbedder said.
Ledbedder went on to imply that the store purposely targets Native Americans since it is aware that reservations prohibit alcohol sales.
"[The store] has admitted that more than half of its sales of alcohol are to Native Americans," he said. "Of course there are no alcohol sales or legal advertising of alcohol sales on the Navajo nations reservation. So border communities have set up these kinds of trading posts that provide the alcohol."
The defense, on the other hand, did not feel that long-arm jurisdiction could be applied in this situation.
"My client's store is approximately 25 miles north of the border," defense attorney Paul McGoldrick said, arguing that because his client's store is so far from the reservation, he is bound solely by the laws of the state of Colorado and not responsible for the intoxication of the tribal member.
"I do not have a problem at all with the way the Navajo court system and legislative branch attempts to deal with the problem of drunk driving on the reservation," McGoldrick said. "But to suggest that the long-arm statute can reach out to a resident of Colorado who made a sale in Colorado should be brought to [the Navajo Court] court is unfair."
He argued that if his client were to prohibit Navajo members from purchasing alcohol, or question their purchases in any way, the store owner would be violating both Colorado and federal statutes.
This case was first brought to the Kayenta district court, one of 10 Navajo trial courts, but was dismissed on the grounds that the court's long-arm jurisdiction did not apply to the liquor store.
The Navajo Nation Supreme Court's decision will be released at a later date, and if either side decides to further appeal it, the case will be brought before the Federal District Court.
